代写演讲稿：警察在打击犯罪行为时收到的约束

代写演讲稿：警察在打击犯罪行为时收到的约束

换句话说，政府不能对犯罪时发现的证据进行非法搜查。因此，政府必须强制执行获得对嫌疑犯的逮捕令的整个程序。授权令将授予政府搜索个人或地点的权利(Burke and Torres, 2015)。因此，排除规则为个人提供了公民权利，并限制了地方和联邦政府的权威权力。排他性规则对社会产生了长期的影响。这些影响的性质既有积极的一面，也有消极的一面。该协会成员知道，在没有搜查证的情况下，警察当局不能直接搜查他们的房子。这样，他们就摆脱了非法的立法力量。然而，在搜查令的情况下，逃避法律程序的余地微乎其微。另一方面，包括警察在内的立法机构受到了严重的打击。作为正常的立法程序，即使有证据存在，警察也必须获得搜查令(Milner, 2011)。
因此，该规则限制了警察立即提起法律诉讼的能力。这样，警察在没有得到搜查证的情况下就不能侵犯任何人或财产。不可否认的事实是，在过去几十年里，司法机构越来越依赖信息、通信技术和网络。技术被用于记录管理和其他目的。因此，随着信息触手可及的技术进步，排除规则似乎正在失去其重要性(Davis, 1997)。犯罪分子充分认识到法律的形式，能够利用强加于警察的违法行为找到出路和逃避诉讼。排除规则确实帮助了社会的大多数人。然而，很少有对社会造成伤害和损害的个人能够逃脱法律的制裁。因此，为了社会的最大利益，联邦政府是时候联合起来，对这一规则进行进一步的修订了。

代写演讲稿：警察在打击犯罪行为时收到的约束

In other words, the government cannot initiate illegal searches of a person or place against use of evidence found at crime time. Therefore, the government has to mandatorily go through entire procedures for obtaining warrants against a suspect. The warrants would grant rights to the government for conducting search of an individual or location (Burke and Torres, 2015). Thus, the exclusionary rule provided civil rights to individuals and restricted authoritative powers of both the local and federal governments. The exclusionary rule had long term repercussions on the society. These repercussions were both positive and negative in nature. The society members knew that the police authorities cannot directly make searches in their houses in absence of warrants. Thus, they were relieved from illegal legislative forces. However, in case of search warrants, negligible scope exists to escape from legal proceedings. On the other hand, legislative bodies including the police took a serious blow. The police have to obtain warrants even in presence of evidences as a normal course of legislative matter (Milner, 2011).
Therefore, the rule restricted police’s ability to initiate legal proceedings on an immediate basis. In this way, the police cannot invade any person or property without obtaining warrants. There is no denial of the fact that over past few decades, justice agencies have become increasingly dependent on information and communication technology and networks. Technologies are being used for record management and other purposes. Thus, the exclusionary rule seems to be losing importance in wake of technological advancement wherein information is available at fingertips (Davis, 1997). The criminals are fully aware of the legal modalities and are able to find their way out and escape from litigation using law breaks imposed on the police. The exclusionary rule has certainly helped majority section of the society. However, few individuals causing harm and damage to the society escape from legal crunches due to the rule. Thus, it is high time that the federal governments get their act together and make further amendments in the rule in the best interest of the society.